Posts Tagged ‘NPA’

Examining the the COPE/Vision Vancouver electoral deal

Posted by Jonathan Ross

COPE and Vision Vancouver sang and danced together in 2008, but will their tryst continue in the 2011 electoral campaign?

The recent utterings of hypocrisy by Councillor Ellen Woodsworth and Councillor David Cadman have got me thinking about the electoral cooperation that COPE and Vision Vancouver successfully exercised in the 2008 civic election.

(On a side note, I will be very interested to see how many events Councillor Woodsworth actually attended during the Olympics, as the rumour is that she was frantically asking for tickets to any event she could possibly insert herself into – regardless of comments by her colleague Councillor Cadman about said tickets being “a perk of position.”)

The deal between COPE and Vision currently remains in limbo, as both sides seem to be content to let things be ironed out at the last minute, as was the case in 2008.

Here are the strategic considerations for both sides to consider in a conversation that would be wise to have sooner rather than later.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ladner, Sullivan and Owen’s management of Property Endowment Fund suspect

Posted by Jonathan Ross

Some former NPA affiliated staffers are running extremely low in the memory department.

So, a Freedom of Information request filed by City Caucus’ Daniel Fontaine has discovered that the Property Endowment Fund (PEF) board did not meet during the calendar year of 2009.

Without the time nor the inclination to find out the frequency of meetings in previous council years, however, the magic of the Internet has turned up some interesting facts about the reign over the PEF by former NPA Mayors/mayoral candidates.

Read the rest of this entry »

Everyone recognizes the need for more rental housing – EXCEPT Suzanne Anton

Posted by Jonathan Ross

Long Term Forecast Updated: Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Wednesday
Jan. 13
Thursday
Jan. 14
Friday
Jan. 15
Saturday
Jan. 16
Sunday
Jan. 17
Cloudy Cloudy Cloudy with showers Cloudy periods Variable cloudiness
Cloudy Cloudy Cloudy with showers Cloudy periods Variable cloudiness
High 25°C 29°C 32°C 33°C 31°C
Low 23°C 24°C 24°C 26°C 25°C

A lack of sun down here in Jamaica, and a burning desire to throw out some points regarding lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton’s piece in the Vancouver Sun yesterday, has prompted this post.

As reported in an article in the Vancouver Sun last month, there has been no rental housing built in the West End for at least a decade.

There is a need for 5,500 new rental housing units per year over the next five years in metro Vancouver, according to a report written by  Lorraine Copas , formerly of CMHC and now a Senior Housing Planner with Metro Vancouver. That report was distributed to all of Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities last spring to initiate strategies to create more rental housing stock.

On April 23, 2008, the Vancouver City Planning Commission established a Market Rental Housing Committee (which, as it happens, Mike Klassen of City Caucus was a member of) to “develop policies to increase the supply of market rental housing inVancouver.” In October 2008, that committee released a report that found the rental apartment vacancy rates are the lowest since 1997, and more specifically, that “the West End has the most acute rental housing vacancy rate of 0.2%.”  It also stated that “the city urgently needs to devise and implement policies which do not exclusively depend on the policies and programs of provincial and federal governments” and that “the city can initiate policies within its own structure to encourage the housing market to build more rental housing.

The report also talks about another 100,000 people in Vancouver by 2025, with “the only way to accommodate another 100,000 people is to increase density” through “a sustainable and sensitive manner, keeping Vancouver “clean, green and livable” with a high level of community amenities and services.  None of this will come easily or cheaply, demanding from all of us (council, planners and citizens) creative thinking, long term focus, green designs and adaptable spaces and structures.”

However, here is two key findings that I want to highlight from that report:

“If the city could encourage the supply of market rental housing, there will not only be relief to the very tight vacancy rates but also likely some relief to the high rents.”

“Supplying market rental housing should be considered as a “public benefit”. The basic thrust of our recommendations is that we need to pro-actively devise new approaches to creating the supply of market rental housing in the city. In this context, we consider “rental housing as a public amenity”.

So everyone seems to see the benefit of increasing rental housing stock in Vancouver – everyone, that is, except for Suzanne Anton, that is.  The fact is, the STIR program is on track to produce at least 400 units and perhaps as many as 1,700 by the end of 2010. All of these proposed units would be around for the life of the host building, or 60 years – whichever is longer.

Question the political motivation behind yesterday’s piece by Anton?  Well consider this:

In the piece, Anton speaks about how the city could have used the $4.7 million for the west end development “to invest in public projects that would benefit everyone,” citing the Aquatic Centre or a gay and lesbian centre as examples.  But just last month, she was also speaking about putting the money towards “saving the Stanley Park petting zoo,” which at the time was the political barn burner (translation: the NPA’s latest hope of actually resonating) for the season.

In closing, I’d like to end off with a quote from Terry Lavender, a long-time West End renter, and a former member of the board of the Mole Hill Community Housing Society for seven years:

No thank you, Ms. Anton. West Enders need rental housing more than a petting zoo.

Lavender, by the way, is an opponent of the highrise development in the west end as well, but for reasons having to do with proper planning rather than questioning the need for such rental units.

That’s OK Suzanne.  Eventually, one of the attacks you throw against the wall might just stick.  Yesterday’s, however, wasn’t it.

Agenda implementation is NOT a hands off proposition

Posted by Jonathan Ross

This is how some feel that City of Vancouver staff should operate in implementing the agenda of a democratically elected government.

This image demonstrates the way some feel that City of Vancouver staff need to act when implementing the agenda of a democratically elected government.

I read the comments for this posting by Frances Bula and laugh.

Are we to believe that the previous Vancouver City Manager Judy Rogers was somehow apolitical when, as an example, she distributed a confidential memo to staff that accused the unions of using the 2007 civic strike to defeat the NPA in the next election?

Regardless, the recommendations that come from staff are only as good as the direction the Council chooses to ultimately head towards – a position that Gregor made very clear during the 2008 campaign:

“Staff are there to provide information and not to make decisions…that should be left up to those that are elected by the people.”

The same applies to the issue of street homelessness.  Gregor Robertson campaigned on ending it by 2015 as his number one issue during the election – no surprises there.  And, as the map in the linked article demonstrates, those were the results that the Vancouver electorate returned in the ballot boxes.

So you’ll forgive me if I also scoff at the criticisms of a man who presided over the Mayor’s office during a period where street homelessness increased by 37 per cent in spite of promising a reduction of 50 per cent (yes…clearly a pipe dream).  Oh yeah, and a former provincial cabinet minister and his “blue chip law firm” got contracts for consulting on the initiative (half of the budget is reported by the Tyee to have been spent in the first year).  The initiative I am referring to – Project Civil City – brilliantly demonized the homeless and the mentally ill by using law enforcement to ticket people without a permanent address.

Truth be told…the Council years under Larry Campbell were far, far worse.  But then again, they aren’t there beating the drums against an agenda that the voters of Vancouver overwhelmingly endorsed.

There is an agenda with regards to targeting homelessness.  The people of Vancouver overwhelmingly embraced the party that advocated it as their number one priority.  NIMBY neighbourhood minorities that support this intent as long as it doesn’t involve their piece of paradise will never be appeased no matter how much consultation is engaged in.  The Mayor is making sure that he is living up to his campaign commmitment, and the majority of Vancouverites understand the importance of tackling one of Vancouver’s most systemic problems.  Tangible efforts both in terms of shelters and more permanent housing arrangements are coming on line quickly.

Tough issues are always going to be controversial to those who do not support change that impacts them personally.

Political leadership is about mitigating these narrow interests and staring them down in favour of leaving a lasting legacy for Vancouver’s downtrodden populations.

Enough said

Fri Mar 19, 2010

March 2010
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31  

FACT OF THE DAY

An article titled Vancouver Politics by Paul Tennant in The Vancouver Book (1976), describes the entry of TEAM onto the civic political scene in 1968. TEAM, wrote Tennant, “sought to be a moderate reform group appealing to persons of all political ideologies.”

On their left was COPE (the Committee of Progressive Electors), also formed in 1968, and on their right was the NPA (the Non-Partisan Association), which had been a power in city politics for nearly four decades, and which “held that the affairs of the city should be run by those with the necessary knowledge and experience, i.e., those with a professional-managerial background, in order to run the city in a business-like way.”

The reformers, on the other hand, “felt that civic decision-making should be open to the public, with leadership coming from a cross-section of the population, and rule going to the working class majority. This group was concerned about land use, they advocated city control, and preferred to structure politics around the neighborhood concept.”

Quote OF THE DAY

“It was very diverse, and we got together by word of mouth. There were professors, business people, labor, lawyers and from all across the city. It was a coalescing of people around the idea we should do something.” – former City Councillor Setty Pendakur on the formation Vancouver’s reform movement and its political manifestation – TEAM – came into being in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Archive

Tags